RSS
Twitter
Can Local Governments Free Intellectual Property For The Good Of The Community?
from the questions-questions-questions dept
There's certainly no shortage of opinions going on around the country concerning the Supreme Court's ruling that local governments can decide when it's okay to seize property from people for the purpose of economic development. While interesting, there didn't really seem to be much of a tech angle on the story, but Nathan Cochrane took this story and asked a fascinating question on Dave Farber's "Interesting People" list: "If the public benefit of piracy outweighed the private rights of intellectual property ownership then, according to this judgment, states should legalize open slather IP infringement." Now, we just need to find a local government willing to test that theory out. Any takers?
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
Except it's not an exact correlation. The ruling indicated that the local government can seize private property to sell off to private entities. By correlation, the local government can seize private IP and sell it off to other private entities. Of course, one could make the case that the new private owner of the IP would be less restrictive of the uses of that IP.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Obey your Masters
Sorry, but individuals rarely hold IP desired by the masses. SCOTUS ruled in favor of our new Corporate Overlords (via their minions, Local Government). Since most IP is owned by Big Business, there is no chance that such a taking of IP would be acceptable.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Good!
Oh this is a good! Take their own rules, use them ... and make them hate you for it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Good!
Except their own rules won't apply to them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
interesting...
I think the mandatory licensing rules are already based upon eminent domain. If so the basic theory has already been tested and proved. All we need is for some municipality to sieze the work itself not just force licensing.
Could be fairly interesting.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: interesting...
It is a stretch of the imagination to extend the ruling of the Supreme Court to intellectual property. The term "property" here means "real property" which means land and any attachments to the land. It does not mean ANY private property.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment